Music Tracks for AV NIRVANA Reviews - What Should Be Covered?

[AudiocRaver]

Not that we feel the need to please everyone all the time, which, of course, is not possible, but we are interested in your views and preferences. There has been some discussion on this topic offline, and we are bringing it online.

Each reviewer has his own music preferences, and of course some music tracks are more valuable than others in the way they were recorded and mixed. Should a reviewer:

• always use the same tracks?
• always try to make sure certain genres and categories are included in some way?
• always use a core set of tracks that provide some consistency between reviews, plus whatever else he feels like including?
• choose the tracks that please him and call it good?
• other approaches? suggestions?

 

[AudiocRaver]

I am particularly interested in classical tracks are well recorded.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Hi Wayne, I’ll readily admit to listening to some music purely because it’s well recorded and highlights certain attributes of a speaker.

I think this, for me, is what spurred some of the online conversation. I love music, I got into this because of my love of music. Yet sometimes I feel I led myself astray. If I listen to something that is particularly well recorded and it’s great musically, that’s great! What if it’s musically bizarre and unenjoyable, but happens to sound amazing? I have plenty of that too and I really wonder sometimes why I listen to it. Does anyone else even care?

I like to use whatever it is I’m listening to in the moment. It’s rare that I listen to anything once, so often if I find something new that I like I find myself practically studying it. I listen to it on my main system, office system, on headphones, in the car, on friends systems, etc. Maybr I don’t know what the real event is supposed to sound like, but I hear the differences and I know what i like.

I like a wide range of music, but philosophically I have a soft spot for more simply recorded and simply produced music. I really like David Greissinger’s work around recording of symphonies. His approach often compromises the dynamics and bandwidth a bit because of the simple recording technique, but it captures the acoustic space like no other method. I love to be transported to the audience of the real event. The same applies for rock and pop.

 

[Todd Anderson]

I really prefer to use what's in my wheelhouse and zone of interest, so to speak. What's familiar and what draws a spark of curiosity. In my opinion, good gear plays well with most anything... and if something is limited in its scope, then it probably isn't good.

I'd assume that most readers are looking for overall impressions, rather than dissections of specific pieces. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

 

[Tony V.]

Music taste is a difficult one, I like almost any stile but certainly have my favorites for demoing.What a person needs to consider is what audience they are reviewing for. For example most youth of today want bass and repetitive and many dont even care if its had the life completely compressed out of it...
For myself, I want to hear dynamics. I want really good imaging and variety. It does not matter what the reviewer chooses for tracks as long as they understand that a review is going to only be as good as what he is using as a demo if that makes sense

 

[Todd Anderson]

I think one misnomer about modern music - even bass heavy techno - is that it doesn't present dynamics or imaging. Reality is: if you listen, you'll find quite a bit of music that throws a tremendous soundstage.

 

[AudiocRaver]

I rarely listen to tracks any more that lack strong imaging and a nice soundstage (SS&I), even old favorites. And I enjoy a much wider range of genres than ever before if great SS&I are involved, although there are exceptions.

Like Matt, love of music was the starting point for my interest for audio. When I get fascinated by a track or album or artist, I will listen over and over on different systems. And will continue to do so for years. Favorite tracks have been played hundreds of times and never get old (for me - can't say about the others who have to hear them, too).

 

[AudiocRaver]

Orchestral Music: micing and mixing an orchestra is one of the biggest recording challenges there is. But I simply do not enjoy a recording, even if well performed, that does not have strong SS&I. I have heard a FEW exceptions where the performance was electrifying and the recording quality was mediocre or poor or outdated (Nyiregyhazi plays Liszt is one).

Piano and pipe organ are VERY difficult (impossible?) to record with good imaging (other than simple mono) by their very nature. Other than that, I expect good SS&I or I will keep looking.

Edit: This is not a criticism of engineers trying to do their best to capture an orchestra or performer with the best sound possible. Conditions and circumstances can be merciless (and there are PEOPLE problems to deal with as well) and just getting the audio down on tape or HD is sometimes all they can hope for.

 

[Tony V.]

I agree, orchestra is very difficult but a good recording sounds amazing. Look at many Disney movies that have a lot of orchestra the recorded quality is amazing and imaging superb.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

I really have come to believe that Orchestras are one of the hardest to mic well. I really think that, in some ways, there is no one best way. They all seem compromised. The close miking approach screws up the imaging, but offers the best tonal balance of the individual instruments. Methods that are more out into the room provide a better overall sound of the orchestra, better imaging (when done right), but the sound can seem a little bit too much like the room it's in. I still prefer that, but appreciate the improved detail I can hear with closer miked setups. I also find the far field mic approach seems to have less bass. I have a recording of a pipe organ taken in an amazing church, the lowest stops on the organ allow it to produce down to 16hz and below (at least technically) and that sound exists in the recording. My understanding is that no highpass filter was applied, yet the bass on that album sucks. Either they lied and there is a highpass filter, the mic isn't flat down to 20hz and below (possible), or these in room measurements have less bass? Given my experience with some Kodo drum recordings and the like, I think it's at least partially the mic technique.

 

[AudiocRaver]

...The close miking approach screws up the imaging, but offers the best tonal balance of the individual instruments...

Hmmm, I would have thought it would be better for imaging. Not arguing, just confused.

 

[Tony V.]

Hmmm, I would have thought it would be better for imaging. Not arguing, just confused.

Imaging yes but part of the sound that makes an orchestra sound so good is the interaction with the room like the harmonics.

 

[Matthew J Poes]

Hmmm, I would have thought it would be better for imaging. Not arguing, just confused.

Well I’m sure it’s all a matter of opinion. My opinion is that close miking forces the engineer to have to recreate the original SS&I artificially after the fact. That what they come up with sounds artificial.

By comparison, the mic techniques that pull the mics out more far-field capture the natural placement of instruments and natural room sound.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Imaging yes but part of the sound that makes an orchestra sound so good is the interaction with the room like the harmonics.

Well I’m sure it’s all a matter of opinion. My opinion is that close miking forces the engineer to have to recreate the original SS&I artificially after the fact. That what they come up with sounds artificial.

By comparison, the mic techniques that pull the mics out more far-field capture the natural placement of instruments and natural room sound.

Got it, thanks guys.